Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/318021
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 25 MAY 2014 Opinion 23 not compare with those of a general election. Recourse to direct democracy as a means of governance in Malta is very limited when compared to countries such as Switzerland where the electorate participates directly in the governance of the country. Arguments in favour of having a stable and effective government are sometimes made against direct democracy so that the few representatives in the legislature retain power. Propositive referenda do not exist in Malta. Nor does the electorate have the power to recall a Member of Parliament who might no longer enjoy the trust of the electorate who perceive him or her as having betraying their trust. The laws regulating abrogative referenda have been with us since 1998 but abrogative referenda have never been resorted to. It is only in 2014 that a first recourse to an abrogative referendum is being had and we do not know whether this will be the first and sole time that an abrogative referendum is called or whether it will encourage the population to elect to participate directly in the governance of the country through future abrogative referenda. What can be surely stated is that for the last 16 years or so, the electorate has preferred to leave the business of government and legislation in the hands of its elected representatives rather than enter the electoral fray itself. Bearing the above in mind, I find it difficult to disagree with Dr Lawrence Gonzi's decision not to call a general election following a defeat in the 2009 European Parliament elections. I think that his government still enjoyed legitimacy. The situation is however different with regard to Dr Eddie Fenech Adami who, after having won the EU referendum, he was constrained to call a general election because the Opposition was stating that it, not Government, had won the EU accession referendum. This uncertainty had to be placated as it referred to a fundamental issue to the governance of the country and a general election alone could seal the people's fate within or outside the EU. Six weeks following the referendum, a general election was held with essentially one main fundamental item on the agenda – adherence to the result of the referendum on European Union accession – and it was won by the government of the day. The general election became a one-issue electoral campaign simply because the Labour Party at that time acted illogically. From a logical point of view, the general election was not needed in 2003, as it was clear that the people had voted for EU accession but being in Malta, surprises come by the dozen. There was no doubt that the referendum result was clear and legitimate. This is why, at the inception of this article, I refrained from laying down hard and fast rules as Maltese politics tend to be quite sui generis in nature and, as seen above, sometimes even defy logic, statistics and mathematics! To conclude on the issue as to why a government continues to retain legitimacy after an electoral defeat in a European Parliament election or in a referendum, one has to note that the electorate in a general election differs from that in a European Parliament election where, in the latter instance, foreign EU non-Maltese citizens are entitled to vote in Malta in addition to Maltese EU citizens. The electoral turnout is always higher in a general election than in a European Parliament election. The electoral programmes are different and whilst the electoral programme for a general election is touching bread-and-butter issues that will positively or adversely affect the Maltese in their pockets, the same cannot be said with regard to a European Parliament election which, wrongly I argue, is perceived as referring to abstract and distant issues. The impact on the Maltese is felt more in a general election that in a European Parliament election. The powers of the European Parliament are narrower when compared to the Parliament of Malta, which is dominated by the government of the day. On the other hand, there can be cases where a government that has won a general election but lost a European Parliament election should call a general election. An example would be where the government has suffered a resounding defeat ('tkaxkira') in the European Parliament election, such that the only honourable thing for the government to do is to call a general election. However, Maltese political parties do not seem to suffer from this legitimacy syndrome. When the Labour Party lost the general election in 1981, it continued to govern for a full-term till 1987. When the Nationalist Party de facto lost majority in Parliament it continued to govern till practically the end of the legislature in 2013, with sporadic votes being taken in the House of Representatives and outside the course of standard parliamentary procedure, bringing into disrepute and making a mockery of the highest institution in the land. Professor Kevin Aquilina is the Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta